Once upon a time, London was regarded as the undisputed heavyweight champion of global divorce jurisdictions. But could a mass exodus of HNWs and a shift towards a less confrontational approach to divorce bring its era of dominance to an end?
Dozens of Spear’s interviews with leading family lawyers reveal a shifting landscape: one shaped less by litigation and more by discretion, privacy and shifting client priorities. Toe-to-toe courtroom battles are falling out of favour as clients opt for collaborative approaches that allow for greater control and reduced public exposure.
- The best family lawyers for high-net-worth clients
- The best family law barristers for high-net-worth clients
- The best litigation funding providers
To understand how this is playing out in practice, the Spear’s Research Unit canvassed the opinions of 54 top lawyers and barristers working on the frontlines of family law.
Jurisdiction is key
Among the most telling indicators of the evolution taking hold is the question of jurisdiction. Some 85 per cent of our family lawyers say it is among the most important considerations for the financially weaker party in a divorce.
Content from our partners
Indeed, the country in which divorce proceedings are filed can set the tone for the entire process, influencing everything from disclosure requirements to the eventual division of assets.
The ‘right jurisdiction’ is the one where the legal regime is most conducive to securing ‘the best financial outcome for a client – whether they are the economically weaker party or the economically stronger party’, says Davina Katz, founder of family law firm Katz Partners.
Katz, who is known for having represented European royalty, high-profile musicians and A-list actors (including Kate Winslet), adds that London’s approach – historically known for providing relatively generous settlements to the financially weaker party – has long presented challenges for the wealthier spouse.
‘In the absence of a [prenup] having been signed,’ she says, ‘a wealthy spouse is going to face a serious uphill struggle persuading an English High Court judge why their spouse should not participate equally in the fruit of the marriage.’
Family law: Supreme rejection
Recent cases, however, suggest that London courts may no longer be as helpful to the spouses of entrepreneurs and inheritors as they once were.
The high-profile divorce of Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin culminated in a 2024 UK Supreme Court ruling that denied his ex-wife Natalia Potanina the right to bring a $6 billion financial claim into London. The court ruled that the matter had already been sufficiently litigated in Russia and therefore further proceedings in the UK would be unnecessary. The decision has been taken by some leading lawyers as a signal that London’s courts are increasingly wary of becoming a fallback option, especially in instances where another jurisdiction has already exercised its own rule of law.
‘Choosing a jurisdiction is like choosing the rules of the game,’ says Luke Scarratt of Payne Hicks Beach, the firm that represented Mr Potanin. ‘A divorce conducted in London will be completely different to an identical divorce conducted in Paris, New York or Dubai.’
The takeaway is evident: jurisdiction continues to be pivotal, but English judges are increasingly wary of indulging behaviour that might be described as ‘forum shopping’.
[See also: A guide to The Spear’s 500: Everything you need to know]
Peace talks
This shift has contributed to a rise in what Alexandra Tribe, managing partner at Expatriate Law, describes as ‘jurisdiction-neutral proceedings’ – namely, alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Some 87 per cent of the lawyers surveyed by Spear’s view ADR as among the most important considerations for the financially stronger party, making it the highest-scoring option. What’s more, ADR is considered either ‘effective’ (31 per cent) or ‘highly effective’ (46 per cent) as a method of dealing with HNW divorces by more than three-quarters of respondents.
‘No longer will UHNW individuals tolerate the squandering of their well-earned cash on divorce litigation; it often serves to ridicule them,’ says Tribe. ‘I am seeing clients actively seek out ADR, which I encourage.’
It’s a sentiment echoed by Joanne Edwards, head of the family team at Forsters, who tells Spear’s that her own mediation practice has ‘taken off’ in recent years, particularly among what she describes as ‘savvy UHNWs’. She outlines three key advantages of ADR for this group: control and flexibility; efficiency; privacy and discretion – with the last of these being especially important for high-profile individuals.
Katz agrees that the ability to keep a low profile while going through a separation is attractive. ADR is ‘like BUPA for the NHS’, she says. ‘There’s no risk of bumping into someone you don’t want to see in a consultant’s waiting room.’
London in the lead?
But what does the shifting global landscape mean for London’s family courts and the lawyers that help to guide international clients? Only 4 per cent of respondents felt London’s status as a divorce capital was severely under threat, with 61 per cent saying there was either minimal or no threat to its status.
They point to the enduring ‘pull of London’ for UHNWs, be it schooling, property or family ties. For many, these connections outweigh concerns about the London courts’ generosity toward the financially weaker party.
As Claire Gordon of Farrer & Co puts it: ‘Rather than being “under threat”, London’s status is evolving with purpose.’
